Lowering Micro-Trains PS-1s - suggestion for MT

[Brakie]

Bryan,It would be good business sense to release a aftermarket correct ride height and coupler height.Think of this..Every old car that is bought by serious modelers would require the purchase of a updated frame and #1015 couplers.



It never fails to surprise me the way manufacturers think especially with a changing market toward body mounted couplers and correct ride height.

As far as those 40 year old cars "being not up today's standards" by whose standards? Certainly not mine.I'm sure they are thousands that will agree with me.

I would be the first in line for a MT aftermarket frame with correct coupler and ride height to use on those  40 year old cars.

[ednadolski]

Think of this..Every old car that is bought by serious modelers would require the purchase of a updated frame and #1015 couplers.

I wonder if there is a way to make a kit(s) that can fit/adapt to several car bodies.   I'm not a PS1 era guy, so personally I would prefer something for centerbeams, autoracks, and such.

I wouldn't want any MT coupler in the kit, because of the slinky/pogo spring.

Ed

[nkalanaga]

Brakie:  That was part of my idea.  They sell parts, so if they could change the underframe relatively cheaply, they'd sell LOTS of replacements.  As for the defects in the cars themselves, I can live with them.  None of the other N scale models are perfect, so why buy several hundred new boxcars, just to exchange one set of problems for another?

On the other hand, integrating the draft gear into the underframe is a good idea, and I've wondered why it isn't done more often.  If they do an entire new underframe that would seem to be the way to go. 

But again, my suggestion was for a simple, inexpensive, quick solution to one problem.  It seems to be an unpopular or unacceptable solution, so I will withdraw it.

[coosvalley]

I still think a shapeways floor for a 40" boxcar is you best solution....and I think you could use a cheaper material than FUD....who is going to see the underside of the car anyway?

[bbussey]

Bryan,It would be good business sense to release a aftermarket correct ride height and coupler height.Think of this..Every old car that is bought by serious modelers would require the purchase of a updated frame and #1015 couplers.

It's horrible business sense.  If they thought they could recoup the $20k+ investment within a reasonable ROI time faster than recouping the investment in a new model, they would have done it by now.  The monthly circulation of MTL cars isn't as high as you think, and a good chunk if not most of them go to the collector/accumulator base.  It's always available for another entrepreneur to explore, if the investors can be lined up.

In a sense of deja-vu ... decades ago, Kadee/MTL introduced the 50-foot diecast underframe with attached #1023 couplers to retrofit all the non-Kadee boxcar models with body-mounted Magne-Matic couplers and a lower center of gravity.  How many people took advantage of that?

... They sell parts, so if they could change the underframe relatively cheaply, they'd sell LOTS of replacements.  As for the defects in the cars themselves, I can live with them.  None of the other N scale models are perfect, so why buy several hundred new boxcars, just to exchange one set of problems for another?

"If" being the operative word.  And for every modeler who can "live" with the defects, there are others who prefer more accurate models.  No model is perfect, because concessions must be made in deference to the smaller scale.  But most modelers (as opposed to collectors or accumulators) given the choice would prefer more accuracy, which is why you see sales shift to the more-accurate updated model when it hits the market.

On the other hand, integrating the draft gear into the underframe is a good idea, and I've wondered why it isn't done more often.  If they do an entire new underframe that would seem to be the way to go...

Because it's a relatively new design concept in N scale.  There are a handful of models that incorporate it now, and it most likely will be recognized as standard practice within due time.

I still think a shapeways floor for a 40" boxcar is you best solution....and I think you could use a cheaper material than FUD....who is going to see the underside of the car anyway?

Because you won't get the serious modeler to buy in.  It would be an option for a small limited run for a targeted group such as Railwire.  But it wouldn't work for mass market.  The solution is, as stated up top, a new diecast part with an integrated coupler pocket.  That would generate the most interest.  But I don't think enough people would be willing to pay $10 a pop for an underframe that they still would have to buy couplers for to retrofit their existing fleet.  It's cheaper to manually modify the existing underframes.

Another less expensive solution is to install BLMA ASF trucks and #2004 couplers.  The plastic MTL wheels can always be installed in the BLMA trucks for those who prefer the larger flanges and tire width, as the axle length is the same.

[coosvalley]

Because you won't get the serious modeler to buy in.  It would be an option for a small limited run for a targeted group such as Railwire.  But it wouldn't work for mass market.  The solution is, as stated up top, a new diecast part with an integrated coupler pocket.  That would generate the most interest.  But I don't think enough people would be willing to pay $10 a pop for an underframe that they still would have to buy couplers for to retrofit their existing fleet.  It's cheaper to manually modify the existing underframes.

It was meant it as a solution to fix the ride height, not the detailing......if that matters, then the MT car should be forgotten.....

Another less expensive solution is to install BLMA ASF trucks and #2004 couplers.  The plastic MTL wheels can always be installed in the BLMA trucks for those who prefer the larger flanges and tire width, as the axle length is the same.

Another solution.......it seems there are many ways to skin this cat, I guess those who want to do this just have to pick which they like best....

Bouncing ideas off each other is what makes these forums great, but sometimes people can get so negative about a subject.........I don't really like MT stuff, but at least I understand that others may want to better their MT cars, so lets help them instead of shooting down EVERY idea that comes up.......just my 2 cents....

[Brakie]

Brian:It's horrible business sense.  If they thought they could recoup the $20k+ investment within a reasonable ROI time faster than recouping the investment in a new model, they would have done it by now.
------------------------------------------------
I don't know about that seeing to took 50 years for the manufactures to realize freight cars with body mounted couplers would sell to the masses-it took a new company to set the new standard.Yes,Atlas body mounted couplers on their cabooses and stopped there.Look how fast ER decided to retool for body mounted couplers.

Again its makes good business sense to offer products that would improve their current and older models and they would sell a lot of 1015s in the process.

[Wardie]

If you have a lot of MT 40' boxcars, modify one underframe, buy a resin casting kit and copy it. I have not made any ride height modifications or body mounted anything yet because I am hopeful that we are on the verge of a closer to scale coupler. On so many of my cars I want closer coupling. Look at the video Pompy made of his Housatonic RR a week or two ago, every car looks like it has a cushioned underframe. I am not ready to cut and file, or notch anything until I have that better coupler to make it worth my time. Especially on a lot of my frameless tank cars.

[bbussey]

Bouncing ideas off each other is what makes these forums great, but sometimes people can get so negative about a subject.........I don't really like MT stuff, but at least I understand that others may want to better their MT cars, so lets help them instead of shooting down EVERY idea that comes up.......just my 2 cents....

It's not negative to show people the perspective of issues from the manufacturer's viewpoint.  No one is discouraging anyone from pursuing the solution on their own.  But it is impractical to presume that MTL would do it, for various reasons, and it is more helpful than not for people to realize that.  And the sooner people do realize that, the sooner that a solution actually might surface from an alternate source.

[Brakie]

It's not negative to show people the perspective of issues from the manufacturer's viewpoint.  No one is discouraging anyone from pursuing the solution on their own.  But it is impractical to presume that MTL would do it, for various reasons, and it is more helpful than not for people to realize that.  And the sooner people do realize that, the sooner that a solution actually might surface from an alternate source.

Actually manufacturers do listen and many read various forums to get input and then the decided which is better as is or improve.

Look at FVM as a example.The next release of their Gevo lettered for NS will have the correct high mounted headlights.I was told by whoever on another forum that the tooling would be to costly to correct the headlights for the  NS Gevo and in a gentle way told me and a few others we should  shut up and buy it as is..As you can see the complaints from  NS modelers on and off line didn't go unheeded

Look at the move toward body mounted couplers,C55 track,LP wheels etc all came from customers requests..

Maybe, just maybe, MT will listen and consider the possibilities.



It would be nice if MT would join in the discussion.

[coosvalley]

I, too, think the aftermarket is where this product would come from...

Customer support also makes good buisness sense.....

And I avoid most MT stuff because of the issues being discussed here...no fix=no sales, to me at least! I know I'm not alone on this.......... I wonder how this fits into their "plan"? ......

However, I like MT stuff for the nice detail/moldwork, and that it's US made, so I'm not anti-MT. I will just spend my $ with other companies for now .....     

[bbussey]

... Maybe, just maybe, MT will listen and consider the possibilities ...

Why would you think they don't listen?  Just because they don't enact the change you want on your specific timeline doesn't mean they don't listen.  You want prototypical ride height and body-mounted couplers, but against the grain prefer fantasy schemes rather than prototype-only schemes.  There are a ton of consumers that never wanted the pizza-cutters retired and don't want body-mounted couplers.  There are a lot of disparate requests that manufacturers have to sort through to determine what would appeal to the largest segment of the audience.

MTL is in Denver this weekend for the Z scale convention.  Joe may comment when he returns this coming week.

[Brakie]

Why would you think they don't listen?  Just because they don't enact the change you want on your specific time line doesn't mean they don't listen.  You want prototypical ride height and body-mounted couplers, but against the grain prefer fantasy schemes rather than prototype-only schemes.  There are a ton of consumers that never wanted the pizza-cutters retired and don't want body-mounted couplers.  There are a lot of disparate requests that manufacturers have to sort through to determine what would appeal to the largest segment of the audience.

MTL is in Denver this weekend for the Z scale convention.  Joe may comment when he returns this coming week.

First I do not have a time line but,it would be nice if MT would consider a improved aftermarket frame.I also fully believe they listen or we not be seeing MT cars with body mounted couplers..

I think they are thousands that still enjoy MT cars and would buy the improved frames with correct ride height..

I think those that didn't want body mounted couplers,LP wheels, C55 track and other improvements we seen may become the minority or join in as the hobby improves.There is also the silent majority outside of forums that votes with their wallets as we have seen time and again.

[rschaffter]

When MTL was still part of Kadee, they used to make a replacement underframe with bodymounted couplers, albeit with the same bolster height.  Those can still be found in new packaging at swap meets, so I wouldn't expect them from MTL.

It could be a win-win if they offered a 'Gold Line' or somesuch, with a lowered bolster and bodymounts; it would be better for those who want those features, plus it would give the collectors another car to buy...

[Brakie]

It could be a win-win if they offered a 'Gold Line' or somesuch, with a lowered bolster and bodymounts; it would be better for those who want those features, plus it would give the collectors another car to buy...

That would work and they could also offer the frame separately for those of us that would upgrade our older MT cars which would also help pay for the tooling.

Like 'em,hate 'em or pitch 'em in  the trash  those older MT cars are still nice looking cars and far better then the older Atlas cars being sold under the Trainman name.